It’s not just her name, Hilaria Baldwin’s entire life is a fake - Hilaria Baldwin Discussion

Why is this an issue?

reply

Seems to be a trend with people claiming to be something they are not. We have Joseph Boyden and Michelle Latimer here in Canada claiming to be indigenous.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8104) 3 years ago

They opened up a Pandora's box when they started this identity insanity.

reply

[–] sslssg (27640) 3 years ago

I think that both those cases are grey areas. I know what it's like to think that you are one thing your whole life and really believe it, only to find out that you aren't. I think that was the case with Michelle.

With Hilaria, again, I can empathise with picking up accents. I spend a week somewhere and when I come home I'm speaking with an accent. Look at Gillian Anderson, is she pretending? With Baldwin, is it just her accent that is an issue? Do her parents not live in Spain?

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

she claimed to be spanish which is different than claiming to have a spanish accent. she's a phony.

reply

[–] sslssg (27640) 3 years ago

Very well maybe. I claimed to be Irish, Italian, and Ukrainian my whole life, and was wrong. Does that make me phony? I even learned to speak Ukrainian.

Edit,

I should clarify that I'm not defending her, I don't even know who she is, and I can't stand the Baldwins. If she lied about more than where her parents live, then she might be a fraud, but this cancel culture is gross.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

your situation is much different from baldwin. she's has created a false narrative about herself.

reply

[–] sslssg (27640) 3 years ago

So do many actors

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

give me an example

reply

[–] sslssg (27640) 3 years ago

Brian Dennehy lied about being a vietnam vet.
Tyga lied about how and where he grew up. So did vanilla ice.
Johnny Depp, Angelina Jolie, and Shania Twain all lied about having Native heritage.
The White Stripes lied about being brother and sister.
Rebel Wilson lied about her name.

I'm sure there are a lot more. Like I said, I'm not defending her, I just don't really care.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

nothing wrong with calling them out. same goes for politicians who lie about their academic credentials.

reply

[–] sslssg (27640) 3 years ago

I think my problem is that there is extreme hypocrisy as to who gets called out and suffers consequences and who doesn't.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

i always ask myself - should they know better? she grew up in privilege and she has no excuse for this deception.

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 3 years ago

He might have a future politic things as why him letting this go one would hurt him in a race.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

i don't think there is anything to cancel. the article is clear that all she has going for her is being married to alec baldwin.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

She might have a big social media following, for all I know.

But then, the sort of people who follow someone who's just well-known for snagging a famous husband and getting social media followers might very well approve of her tactics.

reply

[–] kwestmo (4114) 3 years ago

She said she was from Spain. She is from Massachusetts.

She made up her name.

At times she pretends she can't remember English works like cucumber; her native language is English.

This is lying.

reply

[–] Stratego (29246) 3 years ago

Her parents have been living in Spain since 2011, but they aren't of Spanish extraction whatsoever. "Hillary" has always known she isn't Spanish and I'm actually doubting whether she has spent as much time in Spain as she now claims.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Because New York post is a legitimate rag.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8104) 3 years ago

Yeah, like the New York Times is legitimate (lol).

reply

[–] Keelai (31877) 3 years ago

NYT has won more Pulitzers than any other newspaper and has great investigative journalism. The NY Post is trash, although sometimes it can be entertaining.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8104) 3 years ago

You obviously acknowledge the significance of human accolades, like the Pulitzers, I don't (generally speaking).

Remember, 0bama won the Nobel Peace Prize in October, 2009, without doing squat to earn it. He even said at the time that he didn't feel he deserved it, but accepted it anyway “as a call to action,” saying “the growing threat posed by climate change” and the responsibility he had “for ending a war.” But by the time 0bama arrived in Norway to receive the award a couple months later, he had approved 30,000 additional troops in Afghanistan, destroying hopes that this anti-war Nobel Peace Prize winner would reverse the militarism of the previous administration. Furthermore, the closing of Guantanamo Bay was a cornerstone of his first campaign but, by the end of his second term, it remained open. Yup, he earned that prize.

The NYT is a LIEberal rag, but it can be entertaining.

reply

[–] Keelai (31877) 3 years ago

False equivalency. NYT has won 130 Pulitzers and has nothing to do with Obama.

Yes, my standards are high and I believe excellence should be awarded. Obviously, you have low standards which explains your failure to distinguish between excellence in journalism and a rag as well as your support for Trump.

reply

[–] jekporkins (1923) 3 years ago

The NYT is living off its past reputation - it's in no way any better than the Post at this point. Not one quality journalist would disagree.

reply

[–] Keelai (31877) 3 years ago

Not true. In 2020, the NYT has won three Pulitzers:

"The Times won in the categories of commentary, investigative journalism and international reporting.

The Times was recognized for coverage that investigated how New York taxi industry leaders exploited immigrant drivers, pushing thousands into debt and many to suicide; the lead essay for a special project on the impact of slavery on the United States, published 400 years after the first enslaved Africans were brought to the American colonies; and a look into Vladimir V. Putin’s shadow war to undermine the West."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/business/media/new-york-times-pulitzer-prizes.html

I doubt if you read anything of substance if you can't differentiate between the NY Post's "Headless Body in Topless Bar" and NYT's in-depth investigative reporting.

reply

[–] jekporkins (1923) 3 years ago

You think getting nominated for a few awards means anything? Cuba Gooding has an Academy Award.

The fact is the NY Times is not just facts now - it's very left-biased. They have admitted so.

I'm gathering you're a liberal since so you're blinded by your sanctimoniousness, so I'll let these articles spell it out:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/11/inside-the-new-york-times-heated-reckoning-with-itself.html
https://www.vox.com/2020/6/5/21280425/new-york-times-tom-cotton-send-troops-staff-revolt
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/racism-new-york-times/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/12/media/new-york-times-1619-project-criticism/index.html

Do you remember when they had to change a headline in the middle of sending out their edition because of backlash from their left-leaning readers? How many millions will they give Sandmann because they didn't bother to investigate the facts? People getting fired, mass exoduses, questionable hires, major internal strife... does this sounds like a reputable paper that I should get my information from?

I don't read either publication, and I'll fully agree the Post is a right-wing paper, but for a whole lot of people the Times has become its mirror opposite and is now a left-wing paper. The Post may have dirtier and catchy headlines, but at least they are honest about it. The Times at this point isn't better at all. There's only so much lipstick you can slap on that pig.

reply

[–] Keelai (31877) 3 years ago

"I don't read either publication"
I read both and have done so for decades. It's common knowledge that the NY Post is garbage except for its sports section.

"You think getting nominated..."
Not nominated. Wins!

FYI, I receive my news from various sources in order to get complete information and different viewpoints. Conservative, liberal, national, foreign, various regional, various racial/ethnic, etc. A news source can still be factual even with a specific viewpoint. That is what you don't understand. You're confusing a viewpoint and factual information. You can't distinguish between a credible news source and a dubious one because you're only seeing politics.

The NY Post has been notorious for years for its low quality "reporting" and no, they are not honest about anything. On the other hand, The Boston Herald is right-wing, but it's factual. NYT is left-wing, but it's factual.

If you don't want spin, then there are also news agencies like Reuters, Associated Press, and Agence France-Presse which have no viewpoint and give straight news.

Your argument is full of false equivalencies. There is a huge difference between a rag like the NY Post which purposely promotes lies and propaganda and an error.

You're also equating the win of one acting award with winning 130 Pulitzer Prizes. No contest!

reply

[–] jekporkins (1923) 3 years ago

"Not nominated. Wins!"
So regarding the above, I was actually pointing out that listing awards does in no way show the quality of the publication any longer as they are milking off of a dead reputation, and you instead doubled down on it. I find that amusing. You also mention they have won 130 Pulitzers, but don't mention that the Times has been around for over 150 years (longer than the Pulitzer Prize, I believe).

I don't read either publication not because I'm not aware of them, but because I find them both to be lacking in quality. I think that message went over your head.

When I say the Post is honest I'm referring to their lack of shame in what they are. I'm actually insulting the Times because they pretend to set themselves to a higher standard when in fact they are absolutely no better.

You use the term false equivalency yet I actually went into quite a bit of detail supporting my claims, listing the multitude of issues they have had in the recent past. You simply ignored that. That's a terrible way to debate. What exactly was a false equivalency? By that I mean:

Do you believe all the controversy and internal dissension the Times is having over the last few years had an impact on the quality of their work?

Do you not agree there can be some serious red flags when an opinion editor is forced to resign due to a 'revolt' from within by far-left staffers?

Do you not think the Times now is swayed, due to the revolution in their ranks, to print only one side of the story? We've seen them pull a headline and the op-ed piece I wrote about above already.

When opinion columnist Bari Weiss resigned from Times (because of bullying!) she said "Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times, but Twitter has become its editor."

reply

[–] millsey72 (9548) 3 years ago

I have to agree with Keelai on this one. My college professor has told us many times, that the NYT is the most trusted news publication around. And he has pointed out many times how the NY Post should be ignored. This was especially true after the Hunter Biden Russian misinformation story came out

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4043) 3 years ago

Hilariaus

reply

[–] Satan2016 (23334) 3 years ago

Fake News!

reply

[–] Keelai (31877) 3 years ago

You mean "Fake Accent!"

reply

[–] Popcorngal (4346) 3 years ago

I think the who thing is a waste of print and time, Spain is in Europe, and the complexions on the population vary. As well as the dialect.

reply